What's surprising though, is that APs and similar exams are not enough. In the UK, I though they essentially looked at A Level results, which are much more representative of what you'll actually study at uni. But I guess both SAT/ACTs & APs must be a better measure that just APs. I just remember fucking hating studying for the SATs though. So boring. SAT IIs were somewhat fun to study for though. In France for instance, they mostly just look at the baccalaureat to get into prep schools / first year at uni. Then exams to get into engr/business/vet schools are actually very interesting topics and very close to what you'll actually study. Same with exams at the end of the first year of med school (which you get into right after 12th grade, unlike in the US where it's after your bachelors).
That being said, they seem to have backed up their numbers, and MIT knows how to count, so they must be right! I just always hoped SAT/ACTs weren't that conclusive so that we didn't have to go through them anymore and could focus on the funner AP/A Level stuff :)
tbh I thought APs were generally more difficult than actual classes at a high-level university (USAFA). And my high school's regular courses (granted a fantastic high school) were actually much more difficult than a state school's courses.
That said, outside of admissions, I don't think I got academic value out of them. They were hard for the sake of being hard. I'd rather have taken the SAT or ACT any day.
(also apropos of nothing but I don't think much of the writing section on the SAT either, which was a hot topic 15 or so years ago... a huge amount is dependent on the graders, and it's fundamentally a "blackboard programming" type scenario where the student is separated from basic resources like word processing and graded on the resulting product... that's not how you would actually work in an academic setting.)
> And my high school's regular courses (granted a fantastic high school) were actually much more difficult than a state school's courses.
I went to a barely-known state university and was very surprised when some of my intro-level gen ed requirement classes mostly covered material I'd already seen in, and with a similar level of rigor to, junior high school. And my junior high and high schools were nothing special at all—at the higher end of performance in the state (so far as those measures are helpful, anyway) but just regular public schools in a state with overall mediocre-bordering-on-poor schools.
If I'd known that the first couple years of college weren't going to be harder than high school, and would have a lower total time commitment, hell, I'd have probably tried to go the drop out -> GED -> start college at 16 or 17 route. I wasn't gonna get into top-tier universities, anyway.
The boringness could actually be a big part of the effectiveness. Efficient study habits and ability to work through boredom certainly help with some undergrad classes. The test would have some predictive power even if it's just measuring those.
AP scores and SAT II's are highly subject to the quality of instruction. I had several teachers who treated it as a more advanced class than honors, but felt no need to teach to the rubric for the test specifically.
I aced the SAT and ACT but had a decent number of mediocre AP scores because I was seeing the material for the first time when I opened the test. Got to college and after a single 45 minute lecture covering the gap material, I'm pretty sure I could have scored a 5. Ended up making for several easy A's freshman year.
I practiced the math part several time to make sure I had it down pat, never the writing part though. Reading those long essays is a chore. I think the reading/verbal part is less coachable than the math part.
>What's surprising though, is that APs and similar exams are not enough.
That isn't what they said. They said that access to those tests is not universal. Students from high schools that don't offer AP classes would have a hard time taking AP exams. This would exclude people from rural or impoverished areas.
This is why the SAT and ACT are useful: they are meant to be aptitude tests. They are IQ tests in disguise. If properly designed, they will measure intelligence with minimal influence from education or cultural background. Theoretically something like these tests could be administered to elementary school students and still be useful for predicting success in college a decade later.
> They said that access to those tests is not universal. Students from high schools that don't offer AP classes would have a hard time taking AP exams.
Yeah, I wish they'd just flat out told me "we expect AP courses" before I applied for MIT back in the day. Would have saved me a lot of hassle that just resulted in "sorry, we wanted AP credits" in the end.
I passed the AP calc exam without a class. But that had a lot more to do with motivation and interest and a sense of entitlement than with aptitude. I wish everyone had my sense of entitlement, but they don't, and classes do seem to make a passable substitute.
That being said, they seem to have backed up their numbers, and MIT knows how to count, so they must be right! I just always hoped SAT/ACTs weren't that conclusive so that we didn't have to go through them anymore and could focus on the funner AP/A Level stuff :)